Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44.The Commander Coast Guard Region (E) Near Coovam River Mouth, Madras. ..RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order dated 29.09.2005 made in O.A.No.612of 2005 on…
- Para 66. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Asst Registrar TKTo1.The Registrar The Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai – 600 104.2.The Secretary Government of India Department of Personnel & Training…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 21.04.2O09CORAM:THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.K.MISRAandTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMANW.P.No.6465 of 2006andW.P.M.P.No.6970 of 20061.S.Jothi2.K.Tamilmani ..Petitionersversus1.The Central Administrative Tribunal By its Registrar, Chennai – 600 104.
Union of India Rep. by the Secretary Department of Personnel & Training Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions New Delhi – 1.
The Director General Coast Guard Head – Quarters National Stadium Complex, New Delhi – 1.
The Commander Coast Guard Region (E) Near Coovam River Mouth, Madras. ..RespondentsWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order dated 29.09.2005 made in O.A.No.612of 2005 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, ChennaiBench, Chennai, the 1st respondent herein and to quash the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioners : Mr.R.ThanjanFor respondents 2 to 4: Mrs. Narmadha Sampath Addl. Central Govt. Standing CounselO R D E R(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.)The present writ petition is filed against the order dated29.09.2005 passed in O.A.No.612 of 2005 by the Central AdministrativeTribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai, which has been filed seekingregularisation of the services of the petitioners. 2. The first respondent – Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioners in O.A.No.612 of 2005 dated 29.09.2005, relying on the decisions of the Honourable Apex Court made in Union of India Vs.Gagan Kumar reported in 2005 AIR SCW 3594 and in Union of India and another Vs.
Mohan Lal and Others reported in 2002 SCC (L&S) 577. TheTribunal held that since the petitioners are Casual workers, they are not entitled to regularisation, particularly, when they did not come through selection process. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice a subsequent communication made by the Joint Secretary(Revenue) dated 07.09.2007 wherein it is indicated as follows: "The daily wage workers engaged in some of the Commissionerates have been representing forregularization of their services. In this regard, attention is drawn to instructions issued by DoPTregarding engagement of casual labour andregularisation of certain categories of casual labourers against Grade D vacancies available. The Doptvide their Om.No.49019/1/2006-Estt(C) dated 11thDecember, 2006 have also circulated regularisation, asa one time measure, the service of such irregularity appointed daily wagers who are duly qualified persons in terms of statutory recruitment rules for the post and who have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post, but not under cover of orders of Courts or Tribunals.
You are requested to get the information collected as per the enclosed format from the field formations by 20th September, 2007 and send the same to the Revenue Headquarters. You are also requested to consider proposal for regularization of such daily wagers as may be covered as per the guidelines aforesaid". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. Subsequently, a circular has been issued by the department to the following effect: "In continuation of this Board's letter of even number dated 31.8.2007 on the above mentioned subject,I am directed to enclose herewith a copy ofD.O.No.32020/45/2005-GAR dated 7.9.2007 received from Joint Secretary (Revenue, Hqrs) and as desired therein request you to send the requisite information in the prescribed proforma latest by 20.9.2007 for onwards transmissions to Revenue Headquarters".
Keeping in view the subsequent development, we feel that it is not necessary to go into the question raised in the writ petition and O.A. We feel that, interest of justice would be served by directing the concerned department to consider the matters afresh, in the light of the subsequent circulars dated 07.09.2007 and13.09.2007. It is made clear that appropriate decision should betaken without being influenced by the observations made by the Tribunal.
Operative part
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Asst Registrar TKTo1.The Registrar The Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai – 600 104.2.The Secretary Government of India Department of Personnel & Training Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions New Delhi – 1.3.The Director General Coast Guard Head – Quarters National Stadium Complex, New Delhi – 1. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The Commander Coast Guard Region (E) Near Coovam River Mouth, Chennai. + 1 CC to Mr.R.Thanjan, Advocate, SR.16508W.P.No.6465 of 2006PVR(CO)EM/25.5.09
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.